Sentences with phrase «radiative balance of»

The «forcing» by the way is just a measure of how the net radiative balance of the planet is perturbed by a change in solar irradiance, greenhouse gases, etc..

I have given a number of links above to where this issue has been debated before and it is summed up by this: The AGW GMST is incorrect because it does not allow for this effect, that is: (A + B) ^ 4 > A ^ 4 + B ^ 4; as Mait shows you can have an average temperature which does not reflect the radiative balance of the Moon and vice-versa.

Radiative balance of the earth system then sets the temperature at this level in the atmosphere and the temperature at the surface basically follows from the lapse rate.

The accumulated energy has to come from something affecting the radiative balance of the planet, not just distributional factors.

If all farm animals disappeared, tomorrow, we could not measure the impact on the radiative balance of the atmosphere.

To accurately estimate the radiative balance of snow at a geographical location, it is of great importance to measure all of the light - absorbing constituents in the snow.

You have to look at the whole radiative balance of the whole climate system over a longer period of time.

This is certainly one of the two totally decisive points in understanding the radiative balance of the surface.

Then, if compositional changes occur, involving changes in the net radiative balance of the entire atmosphere the climate zones will shift as the atmosphere has to work more hard or less hard to maintain top of atmosphere energy balance.

Matthew Marler, those other surface fluxes do nothing to restore the radiative balance of the earth as seen from space.

Likewise, I know that the average radiative balance of the earth has been mathematically determined but I do not think that we are measuring actual radiative gains and losses over the entire spectrum well enough as yet.

So a local spike in precipitation releases a lot of heat — but as the heat increases, this negatively affects the vapor - > water transition (precipitation, or raindrop formation), since warm air holds more water then cool air — and so the limit on precipitation vis - a-vis the radiative balance of the atmosphere appears.

(Water vapor and low - level clouds can have a big effect on the radiative balance of the surface.)

For example, we could describe climate change primarily in terms of the physical processes: carbon emissions, the radiative balance of the atmosphere, average temperatures, and impacts on human life and ecosystems.

Guemas et al. (Nature Climate Change 2013) shows that the slower warming of the last ten years can not be explained by a change in the radiative balance of our Earth, but rather by a change in the heat storage of the oceans, and that this can be at least partially reproduced by climate models, if one accounts for the natural fluctuations associated with El Niño in the initialization of the models.

How about this: if I could point to a state change in the radiative balance of the earth that started 6 years ago, would you say unless that state change lasts 24 more years it's not climate change?

Stratospheric cooling as a result of excess CO2 does influence ozone recovery, and ozone changes in the troposphere and stratosphere to have effects on radiative balance of the planet.

Not exact matches

«What is most interesting is that there are big shifts in the surface mass balance that occur from only very small changes in radiative forcing,» said Ullman, who is in OSU's College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences.

The other two shortlisted missions — which had been whittled down from an original list of over 20 possibilities — were CoReH2O, which sought to model the water balance in glaciers and snow - covered areas, and PREMIER, which aimed to study chemical processes in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere and the radiative effects of clouds.

«Fire is losing heat through radiative and convective heat transfer and it is gaining heat as energy is produced as a result of combustion, so it is an energy balance problem.

By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified

The ideal metric of course would be a forcing that can be calculated easily and where every perturbation to the radiative balance had an relative efficacy of 1.

However, in view of the fact that cloud feedbacks are the dominant contribution to uncertainty in climate sensitivity, the fact that the energy balance model used by Schmittner et al can not compute changes in cloud radiative forcing is particularly serious.

I think the actual point that we were making was that the cloud feedback (how clouds change as a function of the temperature, circulation, humidity etc., and how that impacts the radiative balance) is not being calculated here.

Nevertheless, the results described here provide key evidence of the reliability of water vapor feedback predicted by current climate models in response to a global perturbation in the radiative energy balance.»

However, global mean precipitation is controlled not by the availability of water vapour, but by a balance between the latent heat of condensation and radiative cooling in the troposphere.

ENSO events, for example, can warm or cool ocean surface temperatures through exchange of heat between the surface and the reservoir stored beneath the oceanic mixed layer, and by changing the distribution and extent of cloud cover (which influences the radiative balance in the lower atmosphere).

It's something of an abstract concept, but with real world implications, and the universality of such physical models, based on things like radiative balance, atmospheric composition and density, distance from the local Sun, etc., is a very strong argument in favor of general acceptance of the results of climate models and observations on Earth.

However, practices differ significantly on some key aspects, in particular, in the use of initialized forecast analyses as a tool, the explicit use of the historical transient record, and the use of the present day radiative imbalance vs. the implied balance in the pre-industrial as a target.»

I think a better definition of climate change would be a recognizable radiative balance state change that appears immune to short term cycles like ENSO and seasonal cycles.

ENSO events, for example, can warm or cool ocean surface temperatures through exchange of heat between the surface and the reservoir stored beneath the oceanic mixed layer, and by changing the distribution and extent of cloud cover (which influences the radiative balance in the lower atmosphere).

Earth's energy balance In response to a positive radiative forcing F (see Appendix A), such as characterizes the present - day anthropogenic perturbation (Forsteret al., 2007), the planet must increase its net energy loss to space in order to re-establish energy balance (with net energy loss being the difference between the outgoing long - wave (LW) radiation and net incoming shortwave (SW) radiation at the top - of - atmosphere (TOA)-RRB-.

By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified

Because we understand the energy balance of our Earth, we also know that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases — which have caused the largest imbalance in the radiative energy budget over the last century.

Given the economic tenor of many news stories, an analogy to inflation may be useful in clarifying the idea of slow but steady radiative bracket creep, as the CO2 forcing can be outlined in terms of its effect on the radiative balance, which reduces to watts / M2 and their rate of change.

It is found that a radiative forcing from non-CO2 gases of approximately 0.6 W m -LRB--2) results in a near balance of CO2 emissions from the terrestrial biosphere and uptake of CO2 by the oceans, resulting in near - constant atmospheric CO2 concentrations for at least a century after emissions are eliminated.»

However, the sun provides an abundant source of energy and by changing the earth's radiative balance so that we absorb a little more of that energy, we are having an important effect on the earth's climate.

It is the reduced amount of radiation leaving the top of the atmosphere that changes the earth's balance of heat, and therefore defines the «direct radiative forcing» caused by doubling CO2.

But, I think that is likely to affect weather patterns much more than the radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere.

We should underscore that the concepts of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity are simply an empirical shorthand that climatologists find useful for estimating how different changes to the planet's radiative balance will lead to eventual temperature changes.

As an analogy, if I told you that I was going to paint my white car black and that I expected it would get hotter on sunny days as a result, you would probably start asking questions about what the temperature of the paint was when I applied it and how those molecules heated up or cooled down, ignoring the relevant factor which is this: By painting the car black, I am changing the car's albedo and thus changing the radiative balance between the car and the sun on sunny days.

The ideal metric of course would be a forcing that can be calculated easily and where every perturbation to the radiative balance had an relative efficacy of 1.

A vast array of thought has been brought to bear on this problem, beginning with Arrhenius» simple energy balance calculation, continuing through Manabe's one - dimensional radiative - convective models in the 1960's, and culminating in today's comprehensive atmosphere - ocean general circulation models.

Because latent heat release in the course of precipitation must be balanced in the global mean by infrared radiative cooling of the troposphere (over time scales at which the atmosphere is approximately in equilibrium), it is sometimes argued that radiative constraints limit the rate at which precipitation can increase in response to increasing CO2.

In full equilibrium, at any given level, there may be some net radiative heating at some frequencies compensated by some net radiative cooling at other frequencies, with convection balancing the full spectrum radiative cooling of the troposphere and heating of the surface.

Then, the radiative balance limits the rate at which precipitation can increase — a question of rates, which is always going to be more complicated then a question of quantities.

(57k) When I state that the equilibrium climatic response must balance imposed RF (and feedbacks that occur), I am referring to a global time average RF and global time average response (in terms of radiative and convective fluxes), on a time scale sufficient to characterize the climatic state (including cycles driven by externally - forced cycles (diurnal, annual) and internal variability.

In this explanation what is changing is the altitude at which emission occurs, and at higher levels it is colder, so this level needs to warm up to maintain the radiative balance; what would happen once the altitude of radiative emission reaches above the tropopause?

Some of this internal variability can have affect the global average radiative energy balance.

The radiative effect of CO2 can be determined precisely based on physical laws and the result of this radiative effect on the heat balance of the planet can also be determined based on physical laws.